There was revealed: 'Not equal are those believers who sit (at home) and those who strive and fight in the Cause of Allah.' (4.95) [Note: this is the initial version of Quran 4:95]The Prophet said, "Call Zaid for me and let him bring the board, the inkpot and the scapula bone (or the scapula bone and the ink pot)."' Then he said, "Write: 'Not equal are those Believers who sit..", and at that time 'Amr bin Um Maktum, the blind man was sitting behind the Prophet . He said, "O Allah's Apostle! What is your order For me (as regards the above Verse) as I am a blind man?" SO, INSTEAD OF THE ABOVE VERSE, the following Verse was revealed:"Not equal are those believers who sit (at home)except those who are disabled (by injury or are blind or lame etc.)and those who strive and fight in the cause of Allah." (4.95). -- Sahih Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 61, Number 512

OUR DEBATE QUESTION:We shall seek an answer as to why the initial verse of Quran 4:95 was so quickly abrogated. Our Debate Question is: "Which is more likely, 1) that the perfect, all-knowing god of the universe was initially unaware of blind and disabled people, or 2) that the imperfect Muhammad had forgotten about such people when he was first making up this verse?"

Quran 2:178 -- A most significant verse, or a verse of no significance today?

Strikingly, there is a verse which might permit people to be killed as punishment for killings they did not commit (if the brothers of the victims do not forgive & demand financial reimbursement). In Quran 2:178 we read:"O ye who believe! Retaliation is prescribed for you in the matter of the murdered; the freeman for the freeman, and the slave for the slave, and the female for the female. And for him who is forgiven somewhat by his (injured) brother, prosecution according to usage and payment unto him in kindness."

We observe straight away that innocence or guilt is not of consequence -- if your group killed one of our slaves or women, then Allah commands us to respond by killing one of your slaves or women (if no forgiveness can take place), even if these slaves & women themselves were not killers. This verse may explain why if a market-place with many Shia Muslims is destroyed by a Sunni Muslim suicide bomber, then we may read in the newspapers shortly later of a Sunni town being assaulted by Shia militia. In addition, this verse may provide to Al Qaeda a justification for flying planes into buildings in New York killing many innocent people, if Al Qaeda itself is convinced that the U.S. is responsible for deaths in Palestine.

But has this verse been abrogated by Quran 5:32?

" For that cause We decreed for the Children of Israel that whosoever killeth a human being for other than manslaughter or corruption in the earth, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso saveth the life of one, it shall be as if he had saved the life of all mankind." (Quran 5:32).

Surely, this latter verse condemns the murder of innocent people, and thus might abrogate Quran 2:178. But there is another interpretation that there is no abrogation, arguing that Quran 5:32 merely mentions a decree for "the Children of Israel," and was not meant to apply to future generations.Most Muslims today seem to believe that killing any innocent people is wrong, but notable numbers of Muslims do blow themselves up in order kill those who have done them no harm. Humanity would benefit if a definite determination could be made as to whether Quran 2:178 has been abrogated by Quran 5:32. But in any case, are there any logical reasons why a righteous god of the universe would at least initially allow innocent people to be killed in retaliation?

The chapters of the Quran are ﻿not﻿ in chronological order. Sadly for disbelievers, the penultimate chapter recorded (chapter 9, At-Taubah) is most apt to advocate hostility toward them.Surely, disbelievers would have no problem with these verses in the Quran: Whosoever will, let him believe, and whosoever will, let him disbelieve. 18:29There is no compulsion in religion. 2:256.Unto you your religion, and unto me my religion. 109:6.

Unfortunately for disbelievers, later came chapter 9, featuring verses such as these:O you who believe! Fight those of the disbelievers who are near to you, and let them find harshness in you, and know that Allah is with those who keep their duty (unto Him). 9:123Fight those who do not believe in Allah or in the Last Day and who do not consider unlawful what Allah and His Messenger have made unlawful and who do not adopt the religion of truth from those who were given the Scripture - [fight] until they give the jizyah [a tribute] willingly while they are humbled. 9:29

So our Debate Question is: Were Quranic verses preaching peace and tolerance later abrogated by verses advocating violence toward disbelievers? To help us answer this question, consider this initial question: "Would a Muslim in Muhammad's time say to a Christian or Jew, 'There is certainly no compulsion in religion, but since instead of being a Muslim you instead are a disbeliever you may get killed by me, as I fight you until you pay us Muslims a fine tribute!!'" [or instead would this Muslim leave out the "no compulsion in religion"part?]

Initially, the Muslims of Muhammad's time knelt facing Jerusalem when they prayed, but then Allah decided to change the prayer direction to Mecca.This change is referred to in the Quran: "...And We did not make the qiblah which you used to face except that We might make evident who would follow the Messenger from who would turn back on his heels. We will surely turn you to a qiblah with which you will be pleased. So turn your face toward al-Masjid al-Haram [in Mecca]. And wherever you [believers] are, turn your faces toward it [in prayer]" (Quran 2:143-144).Our Debate Question: Before the change in Qibla, how did facing Jerusalem "make evident who would follow the Messenger from those who would turn back on his heels" whereas facing Mecca would not have made this evident?

Turning our attention to what residents of Hell eat, in Quran 37:66 Allah stated that these residents eat from the tree of Zaqqum. Later Allah indicated that they shall eat only the thorny Dhari plant (Quran 88:6). Allah finally decided that the food Hell's residents shall eat shall only be the foul discharge from wounds (Quran 69:36).Our Debate Question: Does the omniscient god of the universe have logical reasons to keep changing his mind about the food for Hell's inhabitants, or instead does Muhammad have a problem recalling what he said earlier?

Finally, while Allah has made clear in the Quran that he intends to torture disbelievers with fire, he finally decided to let Muslims be kind to them if they wish to. In Quran 60:8 we read: "Allah does not forbid you from those who do not fight you because of religion and do not expel you from your homes - from being righteous toward them..." This abrogates Allah's earlier verse, "Never be a helper to the disbelievers." (Quran 28:86).Our final debate question here is "Why was Allah originally opposed to Muslims being helpers to the disbelievers?"

Muhammad's wife, Aisha, recalls: Narrated: Aisha"The Prophet (SAW) heard a man (reciting Quran) in the Mosque, and he said, "May Allah bestow His Mercy upon him. No doubt, he made me remember such-and such Verses of such-and-such Sura which I dropped (from my memory)." [Sahih Bukhari, 3:823].So our Debate Question is "Do instances of Quranic verses being abrogated arise because Allah wants to state something better, or do they instead arise because Muhammad forgot what he recited earlier?

Let us consider one example where there does seemingly seem to be considerable disagreement as to whether one verse of the Quran abrogates another.

Consider Quran 4:15, which calls for punishment of lifetime confinement for women found guilty of adultery: "Those who commit unlawful sexual intercourse of your women - bring against them four [witnesses] from among you. And if they testify, confine the guilty women to houses until death takes them or Allah ordains for them [another] way." Yet Quran 24:2 demands instead that those committing adultery be flogged 100 times: "The adulterer and the adulteress, scourge each one of them (with) a hundred stripes. And let not pity for the two withhold you from obedience to Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of believers witness their punishment."

What is most striking here is that Muhammad himself did not obey Quran 4:15!!! Let us read Sahih Muslim, 17:14209: "Abu Huraira and Zaid b Khalid al-Juhani reported that one of the desert tribes came to Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) and said: Messenger of Allah, I beg of you in the name of Allah that you pronounce judgment about me according to the Book of Allah. The second claimant who was wiser than him said: Well, decide amongst us according to the Book of Allah, but permit me (to say something). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) said: Say. He said: My son was a servant in the house of this person and he committed adultery with his wife. I was informed that my son deserved stoning to death (as punishment for this offence). I gave one hundred goats and a slave girl as ransom for this. I asked the scholars (if this could serve as an expiation for this offence). They informed me that my son deserved one hundred lashes and exile for one year. and this woman deserved stoning (as she was married). Thereupon Allah's Messenger (may peace he upon him) said: By Him in Whose Hand is my life. I will decide between you according to the Book of Allah. The slave-girl and the goats should be given back, and your son is to be punished with one hundred lashes and exile for one year. And, O Unais (b. Zuhaq al-Aslami), go to this woman in the morning, and if she makes a confession, then stone her. He (the narrator) said: He went to her in the morning and she made a confession. And Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) made pronouncement about her and she was stoned to death."​Nowhere in the Quran does it state that the death penalty should be applied to adulterers. So instead of demanding the applicable punishment actually found in the Quran, namely, lifetime house arrest, Muhammad wanted the death penalty for the adulterous woman. Now it could be that Muhammad thought that Quran 4:15 was abrogated by Quran 24:2, but then he didn't even demand that the adulterous woman be flogged 100 times -- instead he wanted the death penalty! Tellingly, both Iran (until very recently) and Saudi Arabia (Woman to be stoned to death for adultery in Saudi Arabia) would rather be guided by Muhammad's actions in determining the punishment for the married female adulteress, than by the Quran itself!